Welcome to Zero. I'm Oscar BOYD. COP twenty eight has finally come to a close after frantic last minute negotiations that meant the giant climate summit ran well into overtime. Now, with the final text agreed upon, delegates are working their way back home, and the venue that hosted the conference will start its transformation into a winter wonderland for the residents of Dubai. There could hardly be a better image to sum up the clash of worlds that was COP twenty eight, hosted by an oil dependent economy a few miles from the world's largest gas fire power plant, attended by more than one hundred thousand delegates across two weeks at a site built for huge trade shows. So what was all this frenetic activity for and did COP twenty eight President Sultan Algebra make good on his promise for this to be the most ambitious climate summit to date. For this episode, I talked with Zero's regular host Akshatrati about what was achieved and whether the one point five degree celsius target is still alive. Actually, I appreciate it's been a hectic few days at COP twenty eight and we're getting you right at the end of your RSL Bunny charge. Thank you so much for taking the time. And there's a lot to discuss with today's agreement, But before we get into the weeds, let's just quickly understand why the agreements that are made at cop actually matter.

Welcome to Zero. I'm Oscar BOYD. COP twenty eight has finally come to a close after frantic last minute negotiations that meant the giant climate summit ran well into overtime. Now, with the final text agreed upon, delegates are working their way back home, and the venue that hosted the conference will start its transformation into a winter wonderland for the residents of Dubai. There could hardly be a better image to sum up the clash of worlds that was COP twenty eight, hosted by an oil dependent economy a few miles from the world's largest gas fire power plant, attended by more than one hundred thousand delegates across two weeks at a site built for huge trade shows. So what was all this frenetic activity for and did COP twenty eight President Sultan Algebra make good on his promise for this to be the most ambitious climate summit to date. For this episode, I talked with Zero's regular host Akshatrati about what was achieved and whether the one point five degree celsius target is still alive. Actually, I appreciate it's been a hectic few days at COP twenty eight and we're getting you right at the end of your RSL Bunny charge. Thank you so much for taking the time. And there's a lot to discuss with today's agreement, But before we get into the weeds, let's just quickly understand why the agreements that are made at cop actually matter.

It's a good question. You know, two hundred countries come together, in this case, one hundred thousand people fly in from different places to meet to talk, and really, what do they produce. It's a piece of text. But sometimes that piece of text can have real world consequences. We know that from the Paris Agreement in twenty fifteen, when the world signed off on a goal to keep warming below two degrees celsius and try efforts for one point five degrees celsius. It became a rallying cry. By twenty eighteen, we had the formula net zero. By twenty fifty, that is now a target, in many cases, illegally binding target from major economies, and it is a corporate target for many of the biggest companies in the world. So when the text is signed off by two hundred countries, it has a weight that is hard to get in any other form of diplomacy. Globally. Sometimes the wording is wooly. There are loopholes, but if the direction of travel is set, it makes a difference.

It's a good question. You know, two hundred countries come together, in this case, one hundred thousand people fly in from different places to meet to talk, and really, what do they produce. It's a piece of text. But sometimes that piece of text can have real world consequences. We know that from the Paris Agreement in twenty fifteen, when the world signed off on a goal to keep warming below two degrees celsius and try efforts for one point five degrees celsius. It became a rallying cry. By twenty eighteen, we had the formula net zero. By twenty fifty, that is now a target, in many cases, illegally binding target from major economies, and it is a corporate target for many of the biggest companies in the world. So when the text is signed off by two hundred countries, it has a weight that is hard to get in any other form of diplomacy. Globally. Sometimes the wording is wooly. There are loopholes, but if the direction of travel is set, it makes a difference.

And the text has just been signed off by two hundred countries and for the first time contains clear language about moving away from fossil fuels. How did that come about?

And the text has just been signed off by two hundred countries and for the first time contains clear language about moving away from fossil fuels. How did that come about?

That's correct. This is the first time in thirty years of having cop meetings there is language that says transitioning away from fossil fuels in the energy system. And it might seem silly because of course we know the problem that is climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels, and we've known that for decades. But because when countries sign off on it, all countries have to sign off on it, that means fossil fuel producers have to sign off on it, and they have in blocking even the mention of fossil fuels for the longest time. We sort of had a breach in the dam in Cup twenty six in Glasgow where we got a phase down of coal power, and this time we have all fossil fuelds covered.

That's correct. This is the first time in thirty years of having cop meetings there is language that says transitioning away from fossil fuels in the energy system. And it might seem silly because of course we know the problem that is climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels, and we've known that for decades. But because when countries sign off on it, all countries have to sign off on it, that means fossil fuel producers have to sign off on it, and they have in blocking even the mention of fossil fuels for the longest time. We sort of had a breach in the dam in Cup twenty six in Glasgow where we got a phase down of coal power, and this time we have all fossil fuelds covered.

So if there's been a breach in the dam, is this now turning into a flood? You know Simon Steele, who's the head of the UNFC. He said that this is the beginning of the end for fossil fuels. That's a big claim because the language is suggestive, i would say, of cutting fossil fuels, but doesn't explicitly call for a phase out, which was what a lot of people were hoping for coming into this cup. So how effective do you think this language really is to keep warming below one point five degree ce.

So if there's been a breach in the dam, is this now turning into a flood? You know Simon Steele, who's the head of the UNFC. He said that this is the beginning of the end for fossil fuels. That's a big claim because the language is suggestive, i would say, of cutting fossil fuels, but doesn't explicitly call for a phase out, which was what a lot of people were hoping for coming into this cup. So how effective do you think this language really is to keep warming below one point five degree ce.

Well, this is where we get into the weeds, because this is where the science comes to play. Now. The science is very clear. It says to be able to keep warming below one point five degrees celsius, you have to start reducing emissions now pretty quickly and then reach net zero carbon dioxide emission by twenty to fifty. How does any single country get there? They can decide there are many pathways available, and do you always have to phase out fossil fuels in all of those pathways? Not really. In fact, in almost every scenario to get to net zero by twenty fifty, there is still plenty of oil and gas being consumed in twenty fifty on a day to day basis. So yes, eventually we have to phase out fossil fuels, but maybe some countries have to do it sooner, some countries have to do it later. And it's very easy to get into a fight about what date which country does it, and because cop agreements have to be by consensus, falling into that kind of debate gets really messy. So the way out in this text is that countries are being called upon to transition away from fossil fuels in line with the science, to keep warming below one point five degrees celsius and reach net zero by twenty fifty. That is a much more precise line which and yes it does mean a rapid decrease in the consumption of fossil fuels, because there's no other scenario to be able to get you to that point.

Well, this is where we get into the weeds, because this is where the science comes to play. Now. The science is very clear. It says to be able to keep warming below one point five degrees celsius, you have to start reducing emissions now pretty quickly and then reach net zero carbon dioxide emission by twenty to fifty. How does any single country get there? They can decide there are many pathways available, and do you always have to phase out fossil fuels in all of those pathways? Not really. In fact, in almost every scenario to get to net zero by twenty fifty, there is still plenty of oil and gas being consumed in twenty fifty on a day to day basis. So yes, eventually we have to phase out fossil fuels, but maybe some countries have to do it sooner, some countries have to do it later. And it's very easy to get into a fight about what date which country does it, and because cop agreements have to be by consensus, falling into that kind of debate gets really messy. So the way out in this text is that countries are being called upon to transition away from fossil fuels in line with the science, to keep warming below one point five degrees celsius and reach net zero by twenty fifty. That is a much more precise line which and yes it does mean a rapid decrease in the consumption of fossil fuels, because there's no other scenario to be able to get you to that point.

So I guess the flip side of the fossil fuel equation is that we need new sources of energy to replace all the energy we currently get from fossil fuels. Just last week, we talked with Jenny Chase in an episode of Zero about the goal to triple renewables by twenty thirty. Did this goal of tripling renewables actually make it into the final text?

So I guess the flip side of the fossil fuel equation is that we need new sources of energy to replace all the energy we currently get from fossil fuels. Just last week, we talked with Jenny Chase in an episode of Zero about the goal to triple renewables by twenty thirty. Did this goal of tripling renewables actually make it into the final text?

It did, alongside many others such as doubling energy efficiency, accelerating the move towards zero and low emissions vehicles, and there's a whole litany of technologies mentioned in the text, hydrogen, carbon capture, and storage, nuclear Those are all things that you're right, we're going to have to build if we are to replace fossil fuels because the world's consumption of energy is not going to decline anytime soon, and especially for developing countries, they want to be able to use more energy. And so the biggest takeaway from having these specific goals in some places, or at least mentions of technology, is that that's a market signal for businesses. We understand that investing in these technologies listed in this document, agreed by two hundred countries, is likely to be the profitable thing in the long term. That's what Jennifer Morgan, Germany's Climate Onward told us that it's now clear investing in fossil fuels will likely end up in a stranded asset, but investing in clean energy is likely to be the profitable route.

It did, alongside many others such as doubling energy efficiency, accelerating the move towards zero and low emissions vehicles, and there's a whole litany of technologies mentioned in the text, hydrogen, carbon capture, and storage, nuclear Those are all things that you're right, we're going to have to build if we are to replace fossil fuels because the world's consumption of energy is not going to decline anytime soon, and especially for developing countries, they want to be able to use more energy. And so the biggest takeaway from having these specific goals in some places, or at least mentions of technology, is that that's a market signal for businesses. We understand that investing in these technologies listed in this document, agreed by two hundred countries, is likely to be the profitable thing in the long term. That's what Jennifer Morgan, Germany's Climate Onward told us that it's now clear investing in fossil fuels will likely end up in a stranded asset, but investing in clean energy is likely to be the profitable route.

One of the technologies you mentioned there was carbon capture, and we could get into a hole debate about that because I know people are concerned that the technology has not been proven at a scale that we need. But one concrete thing that was mentioned and that we know can cut emissions very quickly and has a near time date on it in the text was methane. So the text says countries are called on to substantially reduce non carbon dioxide missions globally, including in particular methane emissions, by twenty thirty. So we made a past episode of Zero together about how quickly cutting methane emissions will have an impact on the speed of warming. So having this language that's got to be really significant, right, Yes, it really is, And there's a little bit of background that might help you understand how sometimes these COP meetings can work and actually produce good solutions. So the first time methane was mentioned at COP meetings was in COP twenty six in Glasgow. A group of countries, some eighty countries came together and said we will reduce methane emissions by thirty percent by twenty thirty. It's completely voluntary, and there was some momentum given to it by the US and the EU coming together on that goal. Since then, the number of countries joining that pledge that global methane pledge has grown. The ability to hold those countries to account has improved because now we have satellites in the sky that can look at those methane emissions, and there is now a UN body, the Emissions Observatory, that can check whether countries are living up to those goals. So momentum was building, and so it's kind of amazing that now all two hundred countries are supposed to target matthane emissions. Of course, not all two hundred countries have to reduce it by thirty percent by twenty thirty, but maybe that's the next thing that'll come at a future crop. There are obviously so many parts of this agreement we could talk about. We had that loss and Damage fund agreed upon two weeks ago. Climate adaptation was a huge topic being discussed, but I really want to talk about implementation. So in his closing speech COP twenty eight, President Sultan Algebra said, let me sound a word of caution. An agreement is only as good as its implementation. We are what we do, not what we say, which I think is kind of is true. It's a very honest moment from him. Having words agreed to in text is nice, but Obviously, it's the implementation that matters. What exactly is needed to implement the COP twenty eight deal.

One of the technologies you mentioned there was carbon capture, and we could get into a hole debate about that because I know people are concerned that the technology has not been proven at a scale that we need. But one concrete thing that was mentioned and that we know can cut emissions very quickly and has a near time date on it in the text was methane. So the text says countries are called on to substantially reduce non carbon dioxide missions globally, including in particular methane emissions, by twenty thirty. So we made a past episode of Zero together about how quickly cutting methane emissions will have an impact on the speed of warming. So having this language that's got to be really significant, right, Yes, it really is, And there's a little bit of background that might help you understand how sometimes these COP meetings can work and actually produce good solutions. So the first time methane was mentioned at COP meetings was in COP twenty six in Glasgow. A group of countries, some eighty countries came together and said we will reduce methane emissions by thirty percent by twenty thirty. It's completely voluntary, and there was some momentum given to it by the US and the EU coming together on that goal. Since then, the number of countries joining that pledge that global methane pledge has grown. The ability to hold those countries to account has improved because now we have satellites in the sky that can look at those methane emissions, and there is now a UN body, the Emissions Observatory, that can check whether countries are living up to those goals. So momentum was building, and so it's kind of amazing that now all two hundred countries are supposed to target matthane emissions. Of course, not all two hundred countries have to reduce it by thirty percent by twenty thirty, but maybe that's the next thing that'll come at a future crop. There are obviously so many parts of this agreement we could talk about. We had that loss and Damage fund agreed upon two weeks ago. Climate adaptation was a huge topic being discussed, but I really want to talk about implementation. So in his closing speech COP twenty eight, President Sultan Algebra said, let me sound a word of caution. An agreement is only as good as its implementation. We are what we do, not what we say, which I think is kind of is true. It's a very honest moment from him. Having words agreed to in text is nice, but Obviously, it's the implementation that matters. What exactly is needed to implement the COP twenty eight deal.

Absolutely, one of the things that that COPS are not created for us, Christiana Figueries told us is that they are not created to implement the policies that they are signing off on, because those policies, after all, will be set up in the national context, in domestic settings within countries but also regions, and that is what really moves the ball. It's implementing those policies. Doing it requires many things. First, it requires capacity. Not all countries have the skills to be able to understand the energy transition, to have the skilled workforce that will go out and build these solutions, to have the institutions that would back up a transformation of energy systems and eventually agricultural systems, transport systems and whatnot. Second, you need finance. Developed countries have big central banks, lots of cash. Yes, they're going through their own crises, but they do have the ability to turn around to their financial institutions and use the money to get work done. You can't say the same thing of developing countries, and so a lot of COP meetings become fights about finance, about getting developed countries to give money to developing countries. We didn't see very much of that in this COP. We saw some side deals around climate finance. The UE, for example, announced a five billion dollar fund that they want to invest in developing countries and ideally bring in more private capital. From that five billion dollars, it will likely add up to twenty thirty billion dollars, but you know, we need hundreds of billions of dollars. So that question is now going to be the question over the next two years. In fact, COP thirty two years from now is going to be in Brazil, and Brazil is the G twenty president next year. So Brazil has committed that it's going to make the reform of the international financial system its core push, where it will work on it in the G twenty presidency and then eventually at COP and then finally, all of this happens when there is technologies available to deploy in developing countries, and so there is a mention in the text around technology transfer. Now it's very simple and vague, and technology transfer gets countries up against the wall, but at least it's there. This is the first time there is an acknowledgment that you need finance, you need people with the capacity to do the work, and you need the technologies.

Absolutely, one of the things that that COPS are not created for us, Christiana Figueries told us is that they are not created to implement the policies that they are signing off on, because those policies, after all, will be set up in the national context, in domestic settings within countries but also regions, and that is what really moves the ball. It's implementing those policies. Doing it requires many things. First, it requires capacity. Not all countries have the skills to be able to understand the energy transition, to have the skilled workforce that will go out and build these solutions, to have the institutions that would back up a transformation of energy systems and eventually agricultural systems, transport systems and whatnot. Second, you need finance. Developed countries have big central banks, lots of cash. Yes, they're going through their own crises, but they do have the ability to turn around to their financial institutions and use the money to get work done. You can't say the same thing of developing countries, and so a lot of COP meetings become fights about finance, about getting developed countries to give money to developing countries. We didn't see very much of that in this COP. We saw some side deals around climate finance. The UE, for example, announced a five billion dollar fund that they want to invest in developing countries and ideally bring in more private capital. From that five billion dollars, it will likely add up to twenty thirty billion dollars, but you know, we need hundreds of billions of dollars. So that question is now going to be the question over the next two years. In fact, COP thirty two years from now is going to be in Brazil, and Brazil is the G twenty president next year. So Brazil has committed that it's going to make the reform of the international financial system its core push, where it will work on it in the G twenty presidency and then eventually at COP and then finally, all of this happens when there is technologies available to deploy in developing countries, and so there is a mention in the text around technology transfer. Now it's very simple and vague, and technology transfer gets countries up against the wall, but at least it's there. This is the first time there is an acknowledgment that you need finance, you need people with the capacity to do the work, and you need the technologies.

And one thing that really made this COPS stand out was its size and scale. There's some one hundred thousand delegates there. There were apparently four hundred thousand people who attended the green zone, which is not where the negotiations happened, but the appendage to the main COP area. I just wonder what you think about the size and scale of these things we were there together. It was a vast venue set up for the EXPOT twenty twenty, all these amazing architectural buildings and people from all countries, all different professions, all there in one place. What do you think about COP having grown to this size.

And one thing that really made this COPS stand out was its size and scale. There's some one hundred thousand delegates there. There were apparently four hundred thousand people who attended the green zone, which is not where the negotiations happened, but the appendage to the main COP area. I just wonder what you think about the size and scale of these things we were there together. It was a vast venue set up for the EXPOT twenty twenty, all these amazing architectural buildings and people from all countries, all different professions, all there in one place. What do you think about COP having grown to this size.

People have mixed about it. People who've attended COPS for years say that it's becoming bigger, and perhaps it's becoming more annoying because you have more fossil fuel lobbyists and you have more corporate lobbyists, and sometimes these side deeals become distractions and you're not really focused on the core part of the negotiation. But then on the other hand, the people who come there are people who are perhaps new to the idea of doing something about climate or are people who think there are opportunities they could grab and make money or go to new countries and open new markets. We are in a messy transition. You know, there is a phrase that was used in the text orderly transition. Well, it's going to be messy even if it is slightly orderly. And people of all professions come here, bankers, financiers, oil and gas companies, renewable energy companies, tech bros. They want to find out what it is that they can do with their skills to try and deploy some of these solutions. Now do they all with a clean heart? Maybe not. But if they're coming towards meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement, the more the merrier.

People have mixed about it. People who've attended COPS for years say that it's becoming bigger, and perhaps it's becoming more annoying because you have more fossil fuel lobbyists and you have more corporate lobbyists, and sometimes these side deeals become distractions and you're not really focused on the core part of the negotiation. But then on the other hand, the people who come there are people who are perhaps new to the idea of doing something about climate or are people who think there are opportunities they could grab and make money or go to new countries and open new markets. We are in a messy transition. You know, there is a phrase that was used in the text orderly transition. Well, it's going to be messy even if it is slightly orderly. And people of all professions come here, bankers, financiers, oil and gas companies, renewable energy companies, tech bros. They want to find out what it is that they can do with their skills to try and deploy some of these solutions. Now do they all with a clean heart? Maybe not. But if they're coming towards meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement, the more the merrier.

After the break, is this the most significant coop agreement since Paris? Coming back to the deal, we've talked about some of the stuff that was in it. Were there any major things that were left out from the deal? Oh, that would be a long list.

After the break, is this the most significant coop agreement since Paris? Coming back to the deal, we've talked about some of the stuff that was in it. Were there any major things that were left out from the deal? Oh, that would be a long list.

And if I give you some country negotiators, I think we're going to have a overnight podcast. I'll bec on one thing that came up quite often. Now, a lot of the conversation we've had so far has been focused on reducing emissions, absolutely important, but equally important is being able to adapt to warming. This is something that developing countries desperately need help on and in fact, as we learned, investing a dollar in adaptation can bring you seven dollars in economic benefits, and so the economic case for it exists too. And this COP was going to be the COP that agreed on a global goal on adaptation. It was something that COP twenty six signed off on. It took two years to come up with a goal, and it did leave many participants unhappy they have signed off on it. It is a framework that addresses many of the key points. You can listen more about those key points in our previous episode with Patrick Fergen, but it left out specifics. It did not actually give measurable targets on how to reach those goals, and it left out a lot on finance. So that's now the work over the next two years where they will come up with more quantified goals and they will figure out how to finance many of these solutions.

And if I give you some country negotiators, I think we're going to have a overnight podcast. I'll bec on one thing that came up quite often. Now, a lot of the conversation we've had so far has been focused on reducing emissions, absolutely important, but equally important is being able to adapt to warming. This is something that developing countries desperately need help on and in fact, as we learned, investing a dollar in adaptation can bring you seven dollars in economic benefits, and so the economic case for it exists too. And this COP was going to be the COP that agreed on a global goal on adaptation. It was something that COP twenty six signed off on. It took two years to come up with a goal, and it did leave many participants unhappy they have signed off on it. It is a framework that addresses many of the key points. You can listen more about those key points in our previous episode with Patrick Fergen, but it left out specifics. It did not actually give measurable targets on how to reach those goals, and it left out a lot on finance. So that's now the work over the next two years where they will come up with more quantified goals and they will figure out how to finance many of these solutions.

So you said there that some parties at the conference were left disappointed. It's two hundred odd countries coming to COP twenty eight. On one side, it's the most climate vulnerable country, small island developing states for example. On the other hand, you have big fossil fuel producers the US, but also all the OPEC countries. Not everyone's going to be happy about this deal. So I wonder what are some of the reactions that you heard from people on the ground as this deal came out today.

So you said there that some parties at the conference were left disappointed. It's two hundred odd countries coming to COP twenty eight. On one side, it's the most climate vulnerable country, small island developing states for example. On the other hand, you have big fossil fuel producers the US, but also all the OPEC countries. Not everyone's going to be happy about this deal. So I wonder what are some of the reactions that you heard from people on the ground as this deal came out today.

Diplomacy is the art of compromise, and it was kind of stunning this morning when all of us sat down to attend the final meeting, and we expected there to be a fight. We expected countries to rise up and make passionate argument for why certain things that they wanted weren't in there. But within the first minute, the Global Starctic, the document we are talking about, signed off and there was standing ovations and then silence because people were confused.

Diplomacy is the art of compromise, and it was kind of stunning this morning when all of us sat down to attend the final meeting, and we expected there to be a fight. We expected countries to rise up and make passionate argument for why certain things that they wanted weren't in there. But within the first minute, the Global Starctic, the document we are talking about, signed off and there was standing ovations and then silence because people were confused.

Just shocked. It was so quick.

Just shocked. It was so quick.

Yes, it shocked everybody. That is not to say oppositions and grievances weren't there. They were there, They just came after they allowed the decision to go through, and those grievances came from small island developing states. Samoa's spokespersons spoke passionately about how having loopholes in the text allowing transitional fuels which is typically code for natural gas, or targeting fossil fuels only in the energy systems but not in sa agriculture to make fertilizers or to make plastics leaves out much of oil and gas consumption still on the table. Or the text uses phrases like calls on which in UN speak is not very strong. It's not urges, it's not should and so yes, there are compromises, and island states are not very happy, but they were also not so unhappy to actually block the deal. The fossil fuel producers who also had to make compromises because Saudi Arabia we know, was adamant on not having phasing out language, well they got their way, but that got replaced by transitioning away. It will affect their business model, investments will go more towards clean energy as a result of this agreement, and so not everyone was happy, but there was progress.

Yes, it shocked everybody. That is not to say oppositions and grievances weren't there. They were there, They just came after they allowed the decision to go through, and those grievances came from small island developing states. Samoa's spokespersons spoke passionately about how having loopholes in the text allowing transitional fuels which is typically code for natural gas, or targeting fossil fuels only in the energy systems but not in sa agriculture to make fertilizers or to make plastics leaves out much of oil and gas consumption still on the table. Or the text uses phrases like calls on which in UN speak is not very strong. It's not urges, it's not should and so yes, there are compromises, and island states are not very happy, but they were also not so unhappy to actually block the deal. The fossil fuel producers who also had to make compromises because Saudi Arabia we know, was adamant on not having phasing out language, well they got their way, but that got replaced by transitioning away. It will affect their business model, investments will go more towards clean energy as a result of this agreement, and so not everyone was happy, but there was progress.

And presiding over this meeting was Sultan Algebra, the president of COP twenty eight. You previously chased him all around the world for a profile. We spoke about him at length in an episode just before Cop twenty eight, and there were scandal around him. At multiple points during this presidency. Videos of him getting irates with former President of Ireland Mary Robinson emerged. Documents that seemed to show he was using cop meetings to discuss adnock business came out, though he strongly denied this afterwards, and yet he got this agreement signed. Do you think he was an effective cop president?

And presiding over this meeting was Sultan Algebra, the president of COP twenty eight. You previously chased him all around the world for a profile. We spoke about him at length in an episode just before Cop twenty eight, and there were scandal around him. At multiple points during this presidency. Videos of him getting irates with former President of Ireland Mary Robinson emerged. Documents that seemed to show he was using cop meetings to discuss adnock business came out, though he strongly denied this afterwards, and yet he got this agreement signed. Do you think he was an effective cop president?

There were a lot of people who attended many cops and this was perhaps one of the best organized cops. There was also a lot of praise for how the cop was run. The presidency made themselves available, They heard lots of people and they tried to take as many views on board. Of course, the test of whether Cop twenty eight would be a success or not were done to perhaps two things. Would there be a loss in damage fund with money in it tick? You got that on day one and two. Will there be enough in the global stock take response to reduce the gap between where we are and where we need to be on the net zero trajectory partial check, that's where things are difficult. At least fossil fuels got mentioned, But as we saw, there are loopholes, so of course fossil fuel producers have a business model they would like to protect, and they found some ways to protect it. But it is also important to recognize it's the first time all countries have signed off on transitioning away from fossil fuels. So I think the presidency would consider this a pretty good success. But let's remember the success of a cop who really can only be measured in hindsight. Will we in two to three years, five years look back at the UAE consensus as the dealer is known now and see it as a consent that was effective that remains to be seen.

There were a lot of people who attended many cops and this was perhaps one of the best organized cops. There was also a lot of praise for how the cop was run. The presidency made themselves available, They heard lots of people and they tried to take as many views on board. Of course, the test of whether Cop twenty eight would be a success or not were done to perhaps two things. Would there be a loss in damage fund with money in it tick? You got that on day one and two. Will there be enough in the global stock take response to reduce the gap between where we are and where we need to be on the net zero trajectory partial check, that's where things are difficult. At least fossil fuels got mentioned, But as we saw, there are loopholes, so of course fossil fuel producers have a business model they would like to protect, and they found some ways to protect it. But it is also important to recognize it's the first time all countries have signed off on transitioning away from fossil fuels. So I think the presidency would consider this a pretty good success. But let's remember the success of a cop who really can only be measured in hindsight. Will we in two to three years, five years look back at the UAE consensus as the dealer is known now and see it as a consent that was effective that remains to be seen.

So the word historic is already being thrown around a lot. Some people are calling it the most significant COP since the Powis Agreement. But the goal of this, obviously is to keep the one point five degree CEE target alive. Is it still alive? Again?

So the word historic is already being thrown around a lot. Some people are calling it the most significant COP since the Powis Agreement. But the goal of this, obviously is to keep the one point five degree CEE target alive. Is it still alive? Again?

This is one of those things where people will have very differing views. Some people believe right now that we are already off the path and we're definitely crossing one point five degrees celsius. Others think we may do that, but then we may come back down if we use things like carbon removal technologies, And of course then you ask any COP president, regardless of whether they come from a fossil fuel country or a vulnerable country, they'll all say, we're going to do our best to try and keep one point five c alive. The thing to note, though, is that if you read the Paris Agreement, it says holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below two degrees celsius above pre industrial levels, and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to one point five degrees celsius. It means that even if you cross one point five degrees celsius, you are committed, as countries having signed off on the Paris Agreement, that you will pursue efforts to reach one point five. That means the goal remains regardless of whether you breach it, you cross it, you have to come back down to one point five degrees celsius put in the effort to do it, because one point five degrees celsius is a death sentence for many vulnerable countries.

This is one of those things where people will have very differing views. Some people believe right now that we are already off the path and we're definitely crossing one point five degrees celsius. Others think we may do that, but then we may come back down if we use things like carbon removal technologies, And of course then you ask any COP president, regardless of whether they come from a fossil fuel country or a vulnerable country, they'll all say, we're going to do our best to try and keep one point five c alive. The thing to note, though, is that if you read the Paris Agreement, it says holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below two degrees celsius above pre industrial levels, and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to one point five degrees celsius. It means that even if you cross one point five degrees celsius, you are committed, as countries having signed off on the Paris Agreement, that you will pursue efforts to reach one point five. That means the goal remains regardless of whether you breach it, you cross it, you have to come back down to one point five degrees celsius put in the effort to do it, because one point five degrees celsius is a death sentence for many vulnerable countries.

ATCHA, thank you very much, Thank you, thank.

ATCHA, thank you very much, Thank you, thank.

You for listening to zero. For all the latest coverage about COP twenty eight and reactions to the agreement, head to Bloomberg dot com slash green If you like this episode, please take a moment to rate or review Zero on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Share this episode with a friend or with a future climate negotiator. You can get in touch at zero pod at Bloomberg dot net. Are Pretty ducer is Oscarboid and senior producer is Christine Riskel. Our theme music is composed by wonderly Special Thanks as always to Kira Bindram i'm Akshatrati back soon.

You for listening to zero. For all the latest coverage about COP twenty eight and reactions to the agreement, head to Bloomberg dot com slash green If you like this episode, please take a moment to rate or review Zero on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Share this episode with a friend or with a future climate negotiator. You can get in touch at zero pod at Bloomberg dot net. Are Pretty ducer is Oscarboid and senior producer is Christine Riskel. Our theme music is composed by wonderly Special Thanks as always to Kira Bindram i'm Akshatrati back soon.